MILWAUKEE (FN) — A Wisconsin judge was found guilty Thursday of felony obstruction after prosecutors said she helped a Mexican immigrant avoid arrest by federal immigration agents, a rare and precedent‑setting case that has ignited fierce debate across the United States.
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was accused of guiding Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, out a back door of her courtroom in April after learning that federal agents were waiting to detain him. Prosecutors argued her actions directly interfered with immigration enforcement and undermined the rule of law.
After six hours of deliberation, a jury convicted Dugan of felony obstruction, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. She was acquitted of a lesser misdemeanor charge of concealing an individual to prevent arrest.
The case is believed to be the first time a sitting state judge has gone to trial for obstructing federal immigration agents, underscoring tensions between local courts and federal authorities amid heightened immigration crackdowns under President Donald Trump.
Prosecutors told jurors that Dugan’s actions represented a dangerous precedent. “When judges decide what laws they want to follow based on personal beliefs, there is only chaos,” one prosecutor said during closing arguments.
Defense attorneys countered that Dugan was following courthouse guidance intended to protect defendants and maintain order. They argued she did not intend to obstruct federal agents but acted to ensure Flores‑Ruiz’s safety inside the courthouse.
Across the United States, courthouses have become flashpoints in the immigration debate. Federal agents often wait outside courtrooms to detain undocumented immigrants after hearings, a practice critics say undermines access to justice. Civil liberties groups argue that immigrants avoid court appearances out of fear, weakening protections for victims of crime and eroding trust in the justice system. Federal officials counter that courthouses are secure, controlled environments where arrests can be made safely. Judges are caught between enforcing state law and accommodating federal immigration policy, raising questions about independence and authority. The Wisconsin case highlights how local judicial decisions can collide with national enforcement priorities, turning routine hearings into political flashpoints.
The verdict has sparked debate across Wisconsin and beyond. Immigrant rights advocates condemned the prosecution, saying it sends a chilling message to judges and communities that seek to shield vulnerable immigrants. Supporters of strict enforcement hailed the conviction as a victory for federal authority.
Judge Dugan, who pleaded not guilty, left the courthouse without commenting. Legal experts say she is unlikely to receive the maximum sentence as a first‑time offender, but the felony conviction itself could end her judicial career and lead to disbarment.
Sentencing is scheduled for early 2026. The outcome will be closely watched internationally, as it highlights the clash between judicial independence and federal immigration policy in the United States — a conflict that continues to shape debates over law, justice, and human rights.
